This manntastic event looms large. With the irascible Dr. Mann pitted against Moore and Curry, fireworks are almost guaranteed. Titley is a lightweight and he’ll be overshadowed by Mann’s huge ego and need to control the conversation. Their idea to hear a “collegial and balanced” discussion may very well be a pipe dream, especially after what happened the last time when Mann and Curry were testifying before congress.
The event is open to the public.
Here are the details from the website:
Climate change is undeniable. But is human activity causing it, and if so, to what degree? How are current public policies helping or hurting the situation? All these questions and more will be addressed at Spilman Thomas & Battle’s Environmental Forum: Conversations on Climate Change.
We’re thrilled to be bringing world-renowned scientists and policy experts in the field to the stage at the University of Charleston to discuss these issues from both sides of the table–expect an exciting exchange of ideas on the causes and effects of climate change, the prognosis for the future, and what can and should be done to prepare for those changes. We’ll hear from those whose research leads them to believe human activity is having a dangerous impact on the climate, as well as those who believe such theories are overblown and unsupported by the science.
Join us for this unique opportunity to see scientists who rarely share the same stage, presenting a balanced discussion about this important topic affecting our planet, our lives, and our businesses.
- Dr. Michael E. Mann, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University
- Dr. David W. Titley, Rear Admiral USN (ret.), Professor of Practice in Meteorology; Professor, Pennsylvania State School of International Affairs; and Director, Center for Solutions to Weather and Climate Risk
- Dr. Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada
- Dr. Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
Tickets are $15 per person, $20 if purchased after May 29.
When
Tuesday, June 12, 2018 from 6:00 PM to 7:30 PM EDT
Where
Geary Auditorium, University of Charleston
Charleston, WV 25304
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I AM Tommy Robinson
“Walk toward the fire” — might be misguided on some legal issues, but definitely doing what is right. Deserves support.
Judging by his pudgy little face, he’s going to eat them for lunch.
There are benefits to being dignified and staying above the fray.
Do not underestimate the Admiral.
The fireworks may catch the soundbites.
But the policy movements will be led by the influencers who care enough to watch all the speeches.
The previous event was a disaster for the realist camp, run away with by Mann. Mann ran thu’ his list of qualifications and no-one asked if he was still claiming to be a Nobel prize winner (nb not ‘Peace’). During the name-calling exchange no-one asked if he had called Steve McIntire ‘a shill for the oil industry ‘ – he did. Have you been sued yet?
A cover charge? Wonder who or what is getting the proceeds.
Spilman Thomas & Battle, PLLC – a law firm in West Virginia
hmmm… not listed on their website http://www.ucwv.edu/Events/
I would begin every reply/rebuttal to Mann in one of two ways:
“Mike, if the physics is so simple and the science is all settled, please explain how/why . . .”
or
“Mike, do you deny the abundant evidence that . . .”
I would pound the geologic evidence that nothing today is “unprecedented” or “out of the ordinary”, that Earth and life have survived far greater change than we see today, that there has never been a “tipping point” despite millions of years of far higher CO2 concentrations, etc.
I would also point out the obvious facts that fossil fuels have been hugely beneficial to mankind, and that people have always suffered more during times of cold than times of warmth. Energy poverty harms poor people disproportionately, “So, Mike, why do you so dislike poor brown people?”
And I’d call him “Mike” just to watch him twitch (heh-heh)
The ad for the event claims that these four individuals are “world-renowned climate change scientists”. This is arguably the case for Mann and Curry, but definitely not for Titley and Moore. That claim destroys the credibility of the event. But the phrase claiming this will somehow be a “collegial and balanced discussion” borders on the hilariously delusional, given past performances by Mann and Titley. It fits Curry perfectly, however. Not sure how Moore will perform.
Any bets Mann pulls a Commey … stuck in traffic ?
In any event good on the University and the panelists for attending .
Long long over due .
I hope they go out for dinner later and build on common ground instead of this 20 year peeing contest .
Common ground?
Two of them can go under the ground. Then the peeing can start.
It is very difficult to debate anyone who is willing to tell one lie after another and media bias is guaranteed to slobber all over Mann. I’m sorry, but I am not very optimistic.
Everyone who goes should wear a Mark Steyn tee shirt.
Brilliant
“Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”
This should come up in the debate.
Why? This statement is almost without meaning without further qualification.
Because it seems to be a sticking point for so many people. We know the earth is warming, that CO2 percentage is going up, and burning fossil fuels is the reason for the CO2 climb. Getting some to say something so simple as “CO2 will contribute to a warming planet” seems to be the first step to understanding basic climate science. All four panelists know the quote to be true.
It should come up, then smoked by Curry and Moore.
The warming found in a test tube 140 years ago is not evidence that it operates in the atmosphere at 0.04% total volume.
There is no other evidence that CO2 has any effect on the atmosphere.
Warming has been happening since the little ice age (1645–1715). Which means that the continuation of that warming today, means little.
etc.
Greg, that a really cool theory you have. You should test it against the world’s climate scientists, who say otherwise.
Why are so many comments based on gut feelings?
That the earth is warming and CO2 is going up are undeniable.
That the burning of fossil fuels is the sole cause is not.
Are you really as simple as the above post makes you seem?
“We know the earth is warming, that CO2 percentage is going up, and burning fossil fuels is the reason for the CO2 climb.”
Correlation isn’t causation, Scott. Spurious correlations.
Early last century G. Udny Yule famously showed a 0.95 correlation between the British death-rate and Church of England marriages. Your logic would require banning marriage to save lives.
Scott K ==> “Carbon dioxide, all other things being equal, will contribute to a warmer planet.”
OK, but on this planet all other things are never equal. All those other things are constantly changing in ways that also effect temperature. There is ample evidence that changes in “all other things” makes the influence of miniscule carbon dioxide concentrations negligible.
“There is ample evidence that…”
To the contrary. This is the crux of the matter. The evidence points to CO2 as the primary forcing, full stop.
Scott,
There is no evidence to that effect. Zero. Zip. Nada.
All the evidence in the world has repeatedly falsified that baseless assertion.
CO2 rose steadily from 1945 until 1977, all the while Earth cooled dramatically, so much so that scientists feared global cooling leading to the next ice sheet advance. Then the PDO flipped, leading to 20 years of slight, barely detectable, indeed so negligible as to be immeasurable, warming, and beneficial if real, followed by 20 years of flat temperature, despite continued steady increases in CO2 levels.
“There is no evidence to that effect. Zero. Zip. Nada.”
I guess you forgot to read the science. Stay on this site and feel better about your gut feelings.
“The evidence points to CO2 as the primary forcing, full stop.”
So far. IOW, AGW is true. But CAGW doesn’t necessarily follow, because it requires positive water vapor feedback. The evidence points against that.
None the evidence points against CO2 sensitivity being high or medium, which limits the effect of even unamplified increases in CO2. (Besides which, increases are subject to diminishing returns, their effects being logarithmic.)
Ooops—I meant to say, “None the evidence points TO CO2 sensitivity being high or medium …”
Scott Koontz May 28, 2018 at 7:45 pm
I’m sure that I’ve read a lot more real climatology than have you.
Please cite the evidence which you imagine supports the repeatedly falsified hypothesis of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming or climate change.
You can’t, because there isn’t any.
Just ask Judith:
“I agree that it is extremely likely that fossil fuel emissions have contributed to the warming observed since 1951.”
None of you seems to understand that the quote is from Curry. You can’t be a scientist who knows something about climate science and say otherwise. Only zazove caught this.
Where is this evidence?
Over the last 100 years, temperatures have gone up, gone down, and stayed steady for over 20 years, all while CO2 rose steadily.
If your simplistic model was actually correct, temperatures should also have gone up steadily.
In the past, CO2 levels have been over 10 times greater than today, while temperatures were much lower.
1000, 2000, 3000 and 5000 years ago, temperatures spiked to well over what we see today, yet CO2 levels were lower.
If your simplistic model was actually correct, that could not have happened.
Scott, models are not science.
zazove, so what? There’s a big difference between having an influence as Dr. Curry stated, and being the primary driver that you trolls always trot out.
Scott, “The evidence points to CO2 as the primary forcing, full stop.”
There is no such evidence. Climate models have no predictive value. The effect, if any, of CO2 on climate is not known and presently not knowable. A physical theory of terrestrial climate does not exist.
You go on complaining about “gut feelings” among others Scott, but gut feeling is all you operate on.
How about this? There is no evidence in Earth history for runaway warming even with 10 times as much CO2 in the atmosphere. This proves the existence and power of negative feedbacks that AGW science pretends doesn’t exist and refuses to look for.
““There is no evidence to that effect. Zero. Zip. Nada.”
I guess you forgot to read the science. Stay on this site and feel better about your gut feelings.”
Scott, since Felix set you up with a fantastic opportunity to present the evidence, why did you choose not to?
(You don’t need to respond. It’s hardly a secret)
Are 99% of all science papers good enough for you, or are you pretending that the one paper from Monckton is enough to disprove decades of some great work?
No need to respond because we both know the answer.
“99% of ALL science papers”???
Scott, what have you been smoking?
Your comment states nothing except your lack of understanding of this topic and the presenters. Would a paper from Curry explaining that CO2 is driving the temps help?
What is she smoking?
And I think it’s fair to say that 99% of all papers that touch on climate science understand that CO2 is the primary forcing. Very few science papers (from qualified scientists and peer reviewed of course, not Heller or Watts) that state otherwise.
Scott, if you actually believe that 99% of the papers support your position, that that alone is evidence that you haven’t been reading the papers.
The papers you call “science papers” provide no science, Scott. Not one of them – not one — presents valid physical error bars. They’re all about statistical correlations and variations about model means.
They purport a certainty they plain do not have. You have been gulled by the incompetent purveyors of pretty graphs.
And the physics establishment has betrayed their critical integrity letting that nonsense slide by; indeed by supporting it. Their offense is unforgivable. The heads of the APS, AIP, ACS, and all the rest including the NAS, should resign in shame.
So what? Unless you are one of those fools who actually believes that any change, no matter how tiny, is evil.
You have to remember how Scott and the other trolls think.
They believe that to be a climate scientist, you have to believe that CO2 is the primary driver.
Anyone who doesn’t believe that is not a climate scientist.
Therefore all climate scientists believe as they do. So hand over you wallet.
Ok, how much will they have to pay Mann to show up? Will he pull a Gavin and refuse to sit on the same stage? Hummmm, somehow I keep seeing a monitor with his talking head Skyped into the equation.
So… We’ve all decided that Dr. C. is the nice gal who finishes last. Why does she do it then? Sometimes i get the feeling that she finds opening her own comment page as loathsome as opening a fridge two weeks after katrina. (never know what you’ll find crawlin’ around there at Slime-it, Etc.) She’s gotta know that this isn’t going to go well. So why even bother? Especially with a forum that includes that creepy mann who’s called her the d-word in the past…
Dr. Curry is not only much smarter than you, but much wiser than you believe.
Well now afonzarelli… who else would you choose? I would certainly choose Lindzen instead of Moore, but he has the same demeanor as Judith Curry. They’re academics not politicos. It shows in their stage presence, it shows also in their assertions and it shows in how they argue. The reason she is there is because she is deeply competent in the field and the arguments presented by Mann and the IPCC do not convince her. Why?
Now if she says it, it means something .. if I say it.. it means nothing.
If Patrick Moore says it.. its still just politics.
Can we listen in and follow the interview life at some radio or tv station?
Been suggesting sound bites to all here and at Climate Etc for a coule of years now. Hopefully Judith will be better prepared than at the Cruz Senate hearing with Steyn and Titley. She was better in the Smith House Christy/Mann congressional hearing 29March 2017(where she owned Mann in the giveand take (my favorite 17 second Youtube snippet), and better yet in her two recent Tucker Carlson guest TV appearances. She should have sensitivity new paper)and sea level rise (new CFAN work and missed congressional hearing earlier this month) nailed. She should be able to own attribution and symbology like polar bears. She should be able to cross up Titley with Chisty’s Smith hearing first graphic based on watching Totley at the Cruz hearing and the Karlization kerfuffle.
Dunno howmup to speed Moore is. He would be ideal for polar bears based on Crockford, coral reefs based on Steele and newly the Ridd fiasco which echoes his own Greenpeace experience, and maybe greening.
She should just relentless beat Mann over the head with everything he continues to hide from the public. Come clean Mikey, then we can talk about taking you seriously.
I’d be happy if she continuously beat him over the head with her handbag.
Link to sponsors’ announcement: http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07ef1oia6i5838c583&llr=ddbq6geab
And Mann is looking at it as a book signing event; https://www.facebook.com/MichaelMannScientist/posts/1769566203099574
I think it’s safe to say that active volcanism is increasing globally as I speak, and that the volume of gases released into the atmosphere (including CO2, CO, N, H20, SOs, etc.) is higher than human-created volume This indicates that we humans have little to no control over what the Earth does as it moves through space, and are at its mercy.
So what is Mann’s plan to reduce the volume of volcanic gases and ash particles from particularly intense eruptions? And since Kilauea in particular is discharging very gassy materials along with its lava flows, what is he plan for putting a cork in that bottle?
Sara
The weather should have warmed up nicely in your part of the world by now.
As a northern tracking jet has kept the polar air well to the north. After the long cold spring you have to suffer. lts looking like the summer may go a fair way to making up for that.
Taxed – Yes, but it won’t last long. Three days of 85F++ and then tomorrow, we’re back to 70s/50s and then 60s/50s and probably rain. The Windyty wind map shows cold air coming right off Lakes Michigan and Gichigoomee into my AO, so I will.transplants my petunias tomorrow. Cold air collides with warm air and BOOOOMMM! Thunderstorms!!! Or thundersnow, if it’s winter. We’re supposed to get rain from that silly storm Alberto, anyway.
Not to worry. I will fix a pot of comfort food (red beans and rice w/smoked sausage) and enjoy my days, and keep an eye on volcanoes in general.
And one more thing: I’ve been keeping an eye on the snow pack to the west. A large part of it is still more than 5 feet deep at high elevations north to south. This is good news, you know.
Where is Red Adair when you need him?
Curry and Moore are a great pairing. I look forward to hearing the debate!
Yup.
I think that Vina Fuerte Tempranillo and BBQ beans with smoked sausage and cornbread make a better pairing.
Jim Steele ! Sounds like a ‘fit and athletic’ material for a good cooking pot !
“Curry and Moore are a great pairing.”
Nah ! Curry and Rice are a great pairing !!
I wish Tony Heller to debate Mann or any one of them alarmists , he is the one who would shred them to pieces
Disagree somewhat. His stuff is mostly good,given a few statistical,problems. But narrow. Temp fiddles, regional US weather, and arctic ice are repeated themes. There is much more to this debate.
Since stating the temperatures for May 23 at one location is Heller science, then all you would need is a real scientist to have 1000s of locations and dates where the temp trend is positive handy to spit back at Heller to stop on his “science.” No way an electrical engineer could go against a climate scientist.
So-called “climate scientists” aren’t scientists. They’re GIGO computer gamers.
You should be embarrassed by the things you write, Scott.
John, that was an embarrassing reply. Don’t you understand any of the science? Maybe ask Watts, the guy who said he’d place all bets on BEST results.
Felix, scientists are scientists. Maybe look tat one up. Are there any people with science backgrounds on this site? This is pretty much what I was told I would find on a Watts site.
Scott – on WUWT, expect to find lots of use of the words rent-seeking, virtue-signaling, global elites, when commenters refer to climate scientists. Strangely, when I’ve asked how can this “bad science in return for grant dollars” only afflict climate scientists and not, say, cancer researchers or physicists working on the origins of the universe, I only get silence. Somehow, out of ALL the fields of scientific endeavor, only atmospheric sciences has experienced a complete corruption of the scientific method across the research community.
Something like 50% of medical papers can’t be reproduced. So the corruption also affects those other areas.
Just because you refuse to see something is not proof it is not there.
Of course there could be corruption in other forms of grant funded research, but climate change science is unique in its politicization and the roughly left/right alignment (at least from a policy perspective) of proponents versus skeptics. This makes the issue have a political-economic immediacy that other research fields do not. And the policy implications have immediate, real world impacts on citizens concerning e.g., the availability of low cost energy sources; higher energy bills for consumers (which has literally lead to deaths of fixed income individuals in Europe, particularly the UK); tax credit schemes that artificially make energy options viable that otherwise wouldn’t be; etc. We live in a world of finite resources and time. When policy decisions transfer billions of dollars of wealth (and enriching tremendously at taxpayer expense those on the politically correct side of the issue) to projects purporting to solve a problem which has not even been demonstrably shown to be man-made, then people are right to question the propriety of such policy initiatives. If the science behind such initiatives is deficient in conclusively showing that such expensive “solutions” can even solve the alleged “problem”, then the onus should be on the proponents to carry the burden of proof. There are numerous academics who have commented on how climate change related research gets favored status over studies that do not. I know of these only anecdotally and will leave to someone else to address that issue.
What change in Climate are you referring to? I have not seen any change in Climate in my life time. For sure, some years have been warmer than others, some years have been colder than others, some years drier than others, some years wetter than others, some years there has been more snow, some years it has been stormier, but hey that is precisely what Climate is. That is not Climate change,
Climate is made up of many parameters. Temperature is but just one of these many variable parameters. materially, these parameters are never in stasis and are constantly changing, and change to one or more is not in itself Climate change, or even evidence of such.
Whilst it is undoubtedly warmer than it was in the depths of the LIA, I have yet to see compelling evidence that it is warmer today than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s. indeed, we can be reasonable sure that as regards the contiguous US it is not today warmer than it was in the late 1930s/early 1940s. Same too with Greenland and with Iceland. The US probably has the best and most sampled data and there is no reason why it should not be regarded as representative of the mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere. There is no reason to consider that it has some unique geographical or topographical features that would render it not representative of the mid latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, so if the US has not warmed then it would suggest that the Northern Hemisphere probably has not warmed and such record as suggest warming is simply an artefact of poor data collection homogenisation/adjustment.
if Hadcrut data is to be accepted then temperatures today in the Arctic are no warmer than the 1920s/1940s, and as we all know the Antarctic has been gaining ice these past 40 or so years.
I see no compelling evidence of any real Climate change since the 1940s during which period man has emitted approximately 96% of all manmade CO2 emissions.
Saben ya, que provoca el Calentamiento Global……NO SABÍAN, por eso se cometieron muchos errores…..
Answer to Mann : There has been no significant change in any climatic parameter (rainfall, temperatures, storms, hurricanes, arctic/antarctic ice, drought in any area of the world ect ect for the last 100 years,If so prove it.The whole AGW “theory is just a tax grab”?
They will need a ref to call high-sticking penalties for sure.